On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 09:17:45PM -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: > On 5/25/05, Luke Schierer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 05:42:22PM -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > > Yes. And we needed a concrete way of doing that across toolkits and > > > applications (i.e. some implementation details about how to achieve > > > this), so Lubos came up with _NET_WM_USER_TIME (and related stuff, > > > like DEMANDS_ATTENTION) in the spec. ;-) > > > > Right. and Etan and Ethan found _NET_WM_USER_TIME to be insufficient, > > hence "* While it may be valuable to specify or further specify how > > this should be done, _NET_WM_USER_TIME in it's current overloaded state > > does not seem to us to be a viable solution for this." I anticipate > > that you will respond that this statement is vague. It does > > continue, giving an idea for an alternate method. > > Pardon me for being rude, but why exactly should I care that two > people whom I don't know and have never heard of have found > _NET_WM_USER_TIME to be insufficient? Not a single example has been > provided where it isn't enough to provide some kind of expected > behavior, nor have any examples been shown where its use would > preclude the ability to provide correct or desirable functionality.
Perhaps you shouldn't. Perhaps you shouldn't care that I'm here complaining either. Perhaps you should have responded like Rob Adams did, and I would have almost immediately given it up as a bad job. Or perhaps you should simply assume that I have a little bit of sense, and that when I say you are going to call something insufficient, that you can refrain from doing just that and put that aspect of the thread on hold until more details are forth coming. Or perhaps tell me where its insufficient so that I can only bring it up again when I have the details you want. But both of those would require that you react with the possibility in mind that something may need to be changed, perhaps there is some issue that you didn't already know about, as you apparently already knew that DEMANDS_ATTENTION needed work. Is that too much for me to ask? > Off-handed/unsubstantied comments like this aren't helpful. > > Now, it may well be that Etan and Ethan are X11 experts and geniuses; > they are likely smarter than me. But without some kind of > substantiation it is impossible to differentiate their claims from the > standard user who sees any old bug in a program they are using and > shouts "This program has a crappy design; it is clear that we need to > rewrite this from scratch" rather than providing information on > tracking down and actually fixing bugs. Saying it's > insufficent/crappy/dumb or whatever is fine, as long as concrete > reasons for its shortcomings are provided. > > Also, as you noted, merely suggesting "something like a > _NET_WM_[GET_|TAKE_|REQUEST_]FOCUS property" is pretty vague, but the > problem is not so much that all the details aren't spelled out as that > it doesn't even provide enough details for me to see how it could work > as an alternate method. It isn't at all clear to me that this > proposal is sufficient (e.g. I don't see how it possibly could handle > application launch cases), or even innocuous (it appears that it might > be placing policy in apps instead of in the WM--something we've run > into a big hurdle with in TAKE_ACTIVTY/MOUSE_ACTION). At least a > little more detail really would be necessary, but first you'd have to > convince us that the current spec has some kind of problem or > shortcoming or there's no way we'd want to dump it for something else > that hopefully-does-the-same-thing. > > > I absolutely understand not implementing something without > > understanding a need for it. We rather came to this > > (DEMANDS_ATTENTION) from the *other* side having needed, looked for, > > and found urgency before DEMANDS_ATTENTION was written. > > I'm really still confused why you think you need to do anything with > DEMANDS_ATTENTION. But, considering the confusion, I think we > *really* need to clear it up in the spec. Maybe Lubos can comment > here since he's the one that introduced the new state... Lubos Lunak seems to be confirming our reading that this *is* something that an application might be setting. it thus *is* something that Gaim needs to do something with, certainly in the case where it is handled differently from urgency (which is true for now at least in metacity as metacity doesn't handle it at all, and if the two concepts are really not the same, then its something that we will end up handling for other window managers as well, because someone will implement them to do different things. Or does it exist only because you all think its too much work for an application to unset urgency itself, so you felt the need to replace urgency so that the WM could be unsetting it? Sorry, that's a somewhat sarcastic reply because I've been told now that its too much work for an application to transfer focus from one window to another. Still, after your somewhat thoughtless paragraph that I replied to separately, you have done a very good job of providing the questions that I need to get answers for you for. I'm really rather impressed, I was expecting more replies like I got when I first posted this thread. Hopefully you are finding our interaction to have at least as much substance on my side, and I will work to provide more substance. luke > > > Thanks for your time and thought on this issue. > > Cheers, > Elijah > _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
